Obamacare

Don't Like the Public Option? How About We Just Call It Something Else?

|

It's always seemed to me that Democrats won the rhetoric war over the public option early on when they successfully managed to get everyone to refer to it as the "public option" or "public plan." That's not an inaccurate label, but neither is "government-run health insurance," which I somehow suspect wouldn't have played so well.  

For Nancy Pelosi, however, that victory is apparently not enough:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to deflect criticism of the proposal. "It's not really a public option," she said. "It's a consumer option."

This is nearly as good as titling card check legislation the Employee Free Choice Act, and while it's not quite as disingenuous, it's basically meaningless—an attempt to make the policy sound less objectionable that actually does a worse job of describing it. As long as we're renaming policy ideas to make them sound nicer, why not just call it the "The Democratic Plan for Happy Puppies and Rainbows, Plus Free Ice Cream on Tuesdays"? 

Advertisement

NEXT: Fighting the Federal Ban on Compensating Marrow Donors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I fucking hate puppies.

    1. Then you’d love the Overtoun Bridge in Scottland (where puppies go to die).

  2. Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to deflect criticism of the proposal. “It’s not really a public option,” she said. “It’s a consumer option.”

    I fail to see the difference, Nancy, dear… sweetheart.

  3. They are body illustrations!

  4. Why only Tuesdays? Why do you hate ice cream?

    1. He doesn’t hate ice cream. He hates the children!

  5. This is one of the dumbest things progressives do. They try to change people’s minds by changing the words they use.

    Seriously, it reveals not only an incredible level of contempt for the intelligence of the average person around them, but also a degree of stupidity all on it’s own. Anyone who thinks people are dumb enough to just change their political opinions because you’ve rennamed something is just stupid themselves. It’s the most intellectually lazy form of argument imaginable. It;’s not even a form of arguments. It’s just an attempt to avoid one. Let’s not actually think about why people are opposed to X and try to change their minds, let’s just call X somethign else and hope that magically their opposition will disappear.

    If it happens to work for some small percentage of the population, that doesn’t do anything to enhance the merits of their position.

    1. This is one of the dumbest things progressives do. They try to change people’s minds by changing the words they use.

      I blame George Lakoff. He’s spent the better part of the last decade telling them that’s what they’re supposed to do. Unfortunately, it seems to bear political fruit.

    2. Dumb? I would say the exact opposite. I have no faith in most people’s ability to understand the issues. Nuance? Forget about it. Rebranding and relabeling is pure political genius because it works.

      1. Does it? What are some examples of it actually working … for longer than a couple of years.

        When they told people to use ‘handicapped’ instead of ‘cripple’, ‘handicapped’ eventually acquired negative connotations. Then they changed it to ‘disabled’. Then ‘differently abled’.

        No matter how many times they change the words, it seems most people still think it’s a bad thing to have no legs.

        1. It only has to work for a month or two. Once medicine gets more socialized, it will be nearly impossible to go back, regardless of the outcomes.

        2. You wouldn’t believe (actually you probably would) what the new term for “special needs” children is now–special rights.

          I heard some teachers who work with retarded kids throwing this word around recently. They’ve officially stripped the words of any meaning whatsoever (at least special needs is somewhat intuitive–special rights just sounds like nebulous affirmative action.)

          This PC bullshit is absolutely fucking ridiculous–and as you said, its a constantly moving goal post. I’m just waiting until they run out of new terms and mongoloid comes back into acceptable use.

        3. You wouldn’t believe (actually you probably would) what the new term for “special needs” children is now–special rights.

          I heard some teachers who work with retarded kids throwing this word around recently. They’ve officially stripped the words of any meaning whatsoever (at least special needs is somewhat intuitive–special rights just sounds like nebulous affirmative action.)

          This PC bullshit is absolutely fucking ridiculous–and as you said, its a constantly moving goal post. I’m just waiting until they run out of new terms and mongoloid comes back into acceptable use.

    3. Ummm, a much bigger chunk of the electorate than you think is dumber than a stump, which is why this shit works:

      http://media.photobucket.com/image/iq curve chart/jefferyhodges/IQ_curve.png?t=1215988862

      An IQ below 90 is really dull, and below 80 is borderline ‘tard. Now, consider that many elections are decided by a few percentage points.

      1. Bad link. Take two:

        http://images.google.com/imgre…..sQP8p_DUCA

      2. I take it that Reid and Peolisi’s districts are in the 80-90 range?

        Thiis my favorite part: “140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.”

        Hear that, peasants? Senators are just like rocket scientists!

      3. Also just because someone has a decent IQ doesn’t mean they understand politics or history well. So take the idiots and add scores of millions on top of that. Democracy is nothing but being slaves to idiots and smart people whose negligence toward politics is criminal.

    4. I think it’s the exact opposite. In our world it’s “Define or be Defined.” Even during the forming of this nation this tactic was used. The “Federalists” should have been called the Ratifiers and were using a propagandist term. In our times we have “Privatization.”

      We are going to “Privatize” Social Security, Defense Sector Jobs, Spy Networks, Toll Roads etc etc. For in which none of this is actually Privatized. Yet how many Republicans are for the Privatization of Social Security?

      1. Free Trade Agreements, Voluntary Export Restrictions, Fair Tax ..

  6. It’s not really a public option…

    It’s not really an option at all.

  7. So . . . the phrase “consumer option” is now being used to refer to policy that will almost certainly reduce consumers’ options? Got it.

    If Orwell weren’t dead, this article would have killed him.

  8. Didn’t liberals complain about the PATRIOT act being the result of slick Republican branding and marketing in order to slide one over on the American public?

    Who’d have thought they would stoop as low once they got into power!

    1. How about the Pound You In The Ass Health Plan?

      Sure, PYITAHP, doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily, but it does sound similar to sound you make when you get Novocaine at the dentist, so it’s still health related.

      1. Nahh, Democrats already have the Gay vote sewn up.

    2. ‘Didn’t liberals’

      Depends on which liberals you mean. In Congress, a lot of liberals voted for that bill.

  9. Nancy is losing her touch. If it doesn’t have “family” or “children” in the title, why bother?

  10. It’s not really Obamacare its really Pelosicare.

  11. It’s Obamacare(less).

  12. Wasn’t free ice cream added to the end of the Declaration of Independence?

    1. not sure, the signing was an icecream social though

  13. First Reed says it’s not a penalty, it’s a chance to contribute, and the Nancy says it’s not a public option, it’s a consumer option. Their elitism has befuddled their brains

  14. Not that I’m pro-life or anything, but the most glaring example of this verbal manipulation was when they switched from “pro-choice” vs “pro-life” to “pro-choice” vs “anti-choice”.

    You don’t hear christians calling people “anti-life” or “pro-infanticide”.

    1. Beat me to it, Thomas. I also remember “pro-abortion” falling out favor before we got “pro-choice.”

      See also: “gun control advocates” vs. “the gun lobby.”

      1. Right but I don’t think calling it “pro-choice” ultimately made many people change their minds about the issue.

        1. Good thing the pro-abortion cause isn’t regulated by the Federal Trade Commission – their labels would be illegal. (For instance, the hard-core ‘pro-choice’ people oppose the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak Amendment, both of which protect a taxpayer’s *choice* not to finance elective abortions. The ‘pro-choicers’ don’t even want the House to have a vote on the Stupak Amendment, which would bar federal funds from going to abortion under the health care bill.

          Prolife Democrats are even threatening to derail the health-care bill itself (wouldn’t *that* be horrible!) if the leadership denies a vote on the Stupak Amendment. The pro-choicers don’t even want members of the House to have the *choice* of voting for a prolife amendment.

    2. I hang around a lot of pro life folks, and I hear them called that and worse on a regular basis. “Pro aborts” is my fav.

      1. them = pro choice crowd

      2. How about ‘personally pro-life?’

        As in, ‘I am personally anti-lynching, but I would not presume to interfere with someone else’s choice to engage in lynching.’

        1. A wise choice, unless you favor that sort of neckwear.

  15. “The Democratic Plan for Happy Puppies and Rainbows, Plus Free Ice Cream on Tuesdays”

    What about my unicorn?

    1. It’s going to David Bowie for a sequel to Labyrinth.

      1. I would pay good money to make this idea happen. Where do I sign up?

        1. I too will pledge money for this. I wonder if they could get Jennifer Connelly to sign on for it.

    2. I got your unicorn right here. Now bend over.

      1. See? PYITAHP. It just works.

  16. If you like refund adjustments
    And the music I play
    Send a check to my friend Ralph
    And he’ll send you a tape

  17. You don’t hear christians calling people “anti-life” or “pro-infanticide”.

    To be fair, you do hear pro-abortion tossed around frequently and that is hardly a fair depiction of pro-choice people’s position.

    We won’t even mention abortion being referred to as baby killing ’cause nobody does that, right?

    Politicians and activists of all stripes try to give their position an agreeable name and their opponents’ a disagreeable one. Even libertarians.

    1. You’d have to be dumb not too.

      Of course, in this case, its mostly just to sell us on an idea that nobody really likes but that Pelosi “knows” is good for us.

      That’s the key difference, to me.

    2. Pro-choice isn’t an accurate label either, since most choice doesn’t involve abortion, and they’re only interested in giving one affected party a “choice” about whether an abortion will occur.

      And “baby killing” may not be entirely accurate, but it’s much closer than the various pro-RvW euphemisms for abortion, especially the ubiquitous “reproductive choice”. If abortion is even being considered, you’ve already reproduced, you can’t choose not to. What you’re choosing is what to do with the entity that resulted from your reproducing activity.

    3. When I say someone like Obama or Pelosi is pro-abortion, I mean it in the same sense that Roger Taney was pro-slavery. Of course, Taney freed his own slaves, making him ‘personally anti-slavery,’ but as Chief Justice of the United States, he read into the U.S. Constitution a public policy in favor of slavery (a policy which contradicted the Constitution).

      Likewise, even if Obama never had an abortion, he promotes public policies which favor abortion just as surely as Taney’s policies favored slavery.

      1. I remember hearing that Obama had an abortion, but it happened in Indonesia so it’s not really relevant.

  18. I wan a pony godamnit!

    1. wan = want :::sigh:::

    2. I want a t on the end of “wan”. Get over it.

      1. OK, but I don’t want a wan pony. I want it to sparkle and stuff.

        1. On no no. We are rationing sparkle as a cost-cutting method.

          Sparkle Panels and all that, you know.

          1. Is there a waiting list for sparkles that I can get on, or should I just go to Mexico to get them?

            1. There is a list. But by the time you get to the head of it, either you’ll be dead, or the sparkle will, well, whatever sparkle does when it doesn’t “sparkle” any more. Wane?

              1. It kills. Without hesitation or remorse.

        2. Then take your bitch ass to ToysRUs and buy a My Little Pony yourself, Princess.

          The rest of us are holding out for unicorns so we can go riding naked with the Obamessiah.

          Gack, my brain hurts after typing that. I need to go lie down.

  19. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t call the public option something else.

    But, it doesn’t matter to me. I have an HSA high deductible account. So, I pay near to nothing a month for health insurance. A health insurance that would have delivered NOTHING anyway.

    1. Weren’t you the one on here a month ago complaining about your high deductible AND your high monthly premiums?

      1. I sure was.

        So, I traded in my High deductible ($1,000) policy with a premium of $615/month for a Higher deductible ($5,000) policy with a premium of $135/month.

        I’m putting ZERO in my HSA.

    2. You health plan will be declared illegal when this bill passes. You will be FORCED to buy low-deductible comprehensive insurance. It’s in the bill.

      1. As would my high-deductible plan. Which I love, incidentally.

      2. That is not true…and not in the Bill.

        Not that I’m supporting the Bill. Me, personally, I’m for universal Health…not the public plan

        1. Yes it is. The bill mandates that the minimum insurance plan which would be acceptable for the insurance mandate cover things like prescription drugs, maternity leave, dental and eye care.

          All stuff that would be under your deductible right now.

          So perhaps you can keep your high deductible plan, and pay the annual “fine”. But you’re still not living up to the mandatory insurance requirements.

        2. Linkity link …
          http://voices.washingtonpost.c…..mmary.html

          All plans sold on the individual and nongroup markets are required to cover “preventive and primary care, physician services, outpatient services, emergency services, hospitalization, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging/screenings (including X-rays), maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, radiation and chemotherapy, and mental health and substance abuse services that meet minimum standards set by federal and state laws.” They’re also “prohibited from applying annual or lifetime limits on benefits.”

        3. Linkity link …
          http://voices.washingtonpost.c…..mmary.html

          All plans sold on the individual and nongroup markets are required to cover “preventive and primary care, physician services, outpatient services, emergency services, hospitalization, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging/screenings (including X-rays), maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, radiation and chemotherapy, and mental health and substance abuse services that meet minimum standards set by federal and state laws.” They’re also “prohibited from applying annual or lifetime limits on benefits.”

        4. Also, it’s a requirement that plans do not charge deductibles or co-payments for preventive care.

          1. I have a group plan thru my job. And, it does pay 100% preventitive care…That is one visit for me (Male) two visits for my wife (GYN and General) and 1 visit for each kid. EVERYTHING ELSE is my responsibility until about $5,000

            1. So, I’m betting your high-deductible would not qualify as covering eye care, considering very little eye care actually costs over $5,000. Maybe laser surgery, but that’s optional.

              If they only mean things like emergency eye surgery from having a fork stuck in your eye socket, it’s certainly not clear from the bill.

  20. There’s going to be ice cream on Tuesdays! And puppies!

    I support!

    1. This plan eliminates Tuesday as a day of the week and is replaced by Zodday.

      All kneel before Pelosi Zod!

  21. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t call the public option something else.

    Then let’s call it a Monster Truck so everybody will want one.

    1. “Monster” is too rough around the edges. Plus, Monster Trucks aren’t very green.

      “Free Healthcare” would be better. And when some annoying know it all comes along asking how you’ll pay for all this “free” healthcare, Pelosi can just say … “but, but, it’s FREE!”

      1. If this means the greenies will refuse it and die, then I am all for it!

  22. Yeah I guess the “We can run deficits and set any price we wish so we can eventually price private insurace out of the market and get to single payer without even having to vote on it before medicare and social security go bankrupt that way we will have the people by the balls when we have to raise taxes above European levels because we have a large defense budget as well” option doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

  23. War is peace, too.

    And Obama will have the medal to prove it.

  24. What’s missing from that story is the adjunct from some or another Pelosi dingleberry nearby who chimed in to call it the “competitive option”. I’m sure I read that somewhere, I’ll have to find it.

    1. Aha! That dingleberry was Debbie Wasserman Schultz: http://www.breitbart.com/artic….._article=1

  25. It’s not a bullet, Nancy. It’s a cranial ventilator.

  26. Yeah, because those damn liberals just distort things to get what they want.

    It totally doesn’t work the other way around:

    “They’re not opposed to including end-of-life care? Let’s say that death panels are going to pull the plug on grandma!”

    Reason contributors insist on writing like the south end of a northbound horse.

  27. They’re not DEATH PANELS.

    They’re LIFE PANELS … they decide who lives.

    1. They’re Dearth Panels, which will allocate dearth among the American people.

  28. “The Democratic Plan for Happy Puppies and Rainbows, Plus Free Ice Cream on Tuesdays”?

    Way not to include the kittens. Why do you hate kittens? What do we get on Mondays? And Wednesdays. And Thursdays.

  29. There seems to be a quirk in the leftist mindset that when one of their pet concepts becomes stigmatized, they think the problem is with phrase describing the concept rather than the concept itself. Thereby they go around trying on different names for their ideas because they cannot seem to intellectually accept that the idea is the problem.

    1. I doubt the “leftist mindset” came up with “faith-based initiatives.”

    2. As someone previously alluded, I think perhaps that is a logical consequence of the growth of fuzzy critical language studies (now sometimes called critical discourse analysis). Unfortunately, and to the detriment of classical linguists (IMHO), these days apparently any mode of analysis is considered “scientifically” valid and fair game.

      It’s no wonder that “social science” is sometimes considered an oxymoron.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.